When I was about 17, I did Economics A Level.
I was crap at it but one thing stuck in my mind, the difference between real wages and money wages.
Real wages are everything that you get from a job that isn’t just money.
It might be respect, or power, or learning, enjoyment, exercise, fulfilment, whatever.
I was talking about this with my wife, an art director.
About the real wages in our job.
She was telling me, she usually picked a place by what she could learn from the people she’d be working with.
So I asked her to list what she’d learned, and from who.
She said, in one of her first jobs she worked with Paul Arden.
From him she learned not to be scared of being outrageous and shocking.
She learned the job is to be different, and to stand out from the mass of invisible advertising around you.
And if you get criticised, so much the better, that means you’re doing something different.
As Paul said “It’s good to be uncomfortable.”
After Paul, she worked for David Abbott, twice.
Once at FGA, and again at AMV.
I asked her what she learned from David.
She said class, style, and craft.
She said David taught her to respect every tiny detail about the ad.
Unlike other copywriters, he would be in the studio whenever one of his ads was being put together.
Constantly asking the art director what he could do to help make it better.
She would say to David “We’ve got a widow here, it would help if the line was two words shorter.”
And David would rewrite the copy so that the line breaks worked.
Although he was a writer he was fussier than most art directors.
After David she went to work at WCRS, with Ron Collins.
Ron had a reputation for being prickly, to put it politely.
I asked Cathy what she learned from him.
She said she learned that the idea was all-important, nothing was there just for decoration.
Ron himself had learned art direction at London’s greatest agency, CDP.
Then he went to work at New York’s greatest agency, DDB.
Ron said “At CDP I learned how to art direct, at DDB I learned how to think.”
So what she learned from Ron was the primacy of the idea.
While at WCRS, she also worked with Robin Wight.
She said from Robin she learned energy and enthusiasm.
When Robin was working on a product he didn’t stop until he knew more about it than the people that made it.
Clients, marketing people, research & development, delivery drivers, retailers, everyone.
Robin came on like a tsunami and was just as irresistible to clients.
Then she went to work with Tony Brignul, first at CDP, then at DMB&B.
From Tony, she said she learned pride in what we do.
We are very good at our job, that is the reason why we are hired.
We mustn’t let anybody talk us into doing a mediocre job, for any reason.
It’s better not to do the job at all, than to do something inferior.
So for her, these were the Real Wages.
I’m pretty sure she could have earned more at other jobs, but she wouldn’t have learned so much.
It would be a bit like cashing your poker chips in too early.
Whereas the longer you hold onto them, the more they’re worth.
Personally I think money wages are for people just doing a job.
Money wages are for people who’d rather not be working at all.
Real wages are about more than that.
Real wages are about life.
She must have mentioned me Dave, come on, don’t be shy
‘The World’s best blog, by Dave Trott’
The Cabbie - 22 October 2012 11:22 am
Cabbie,
I think it was the comma that queered it.
Dave Trott - 22 October 2012 12:19 pm
Are you sure Dave? Real wages are everything you get from a job that is not money?
The word ‘real’ in Economics normally means adjusted for inflation or other price rises. You maybe right just never heard that one before.
Personal growth is important and it is never just about the money, money, money.
Jim - 22 October 2012 12:59 pm
My bad Dave, thought you love an over comma’d sentence
The Cabbie - 22 October 2012 1:05 pm
You might well be right Jim.
Maybe that’s why I failed economics.
Dave Trott - 22 October 2012 1:53 pm
Conversely, there’s always a price to pay.
john p woods - 22 October 2012 8:30 pm
“When Robin was working on a product he didn’t stop until he knew more about it than the people who made it.”
I worked with Robin on Quaker’s Chunky dog food and remember Robin eating the dog food to check out “Henry’s” experience.
Mind you, the story in the CDP book puts a little dent in the ” … irresistible to clients.” bit.
Ciaran McCabe - 22 October 2012 11:07 pm
To have learnt from four of the world’s best creatives; what more could you ask for? If I could write half as well as Abbott or Brignull, I’d be very happy…
Tom - 23 October 2012 5:32 am
@Tom – but these days, to a lot of people, writing is a sign of old school. I’m not saying I agree. Just making a point. Robin once wrote ‘Would David Abbott Still Get A Job In Advertising Today”
Here it is:
WOULD DAVID ABBOTT GET A JOB IN ADVERTISING TODAY?
By Robin Wight, the chairman of WCRS, Campaign, Friday, 07 March 2003 12:00AM Be the first to comment
David Abbott is one of advertising’s finest writers, responsible for some of the best long-copy ads ever created. But, Robin Wight asks, would he find work in the visually driven industry of today?
The question is, of course, preposterous. But it arises from a careful comparison of the work of unarguably the greatest copywriter of modern advertising and those who are now producing what is judged to be the best print advertising of today. And the contrast is startling.
A good place to sample David Abbott’s work is The Copy Book, published by D&AD. Here, 32 copywriters talk about their craft and they show examples of their best work. (Surprisingly, in view of what follows, the work is the biggest-selling book D&AD has ever published – it’s now in its sixth edition. If you haven’t yet read it, you should.)
In David Abbott’s section, you will find an example of his magnificent campaign for Sainsbury’s: “Guess what Sainsbury’s new canned grapefruit tastes like?” sits beneath a can of Sainsbury’s grapefruit counterpointed with a fresh grapefruit with its top sliced to mimic the lid of a can.
Sainsbury’s is still living off the quality image this campaign created: eat your heart out Jamie Oliver.
Then there’s a Chivas Regal Father’s Day ad that has no headline, just a picture of a bottle of Chivas Regal beside a little hand-written note “To Dad”. The copy is 50 paragraphs, each starting “Because”. The first reads: “Because I’ve known you all my life.” Copy doesn’t just have to be dry logic.
In another ad, David Abbott is shown lying beneath a Volvo suspended from a single spot weld with the headline: “If the welding isn’t strong enough the car will fall on the writer.” Copy can provide a powerful demonstration.
Tony Brignull, Tim Delaney, Bob Levenson, Andrew Rutherford and others all have their work displayed in this hall of fame. And, almost without exception, there is one thing that separates these ads from much press advertising today. It’s not just the quality of the idea but the fact that all of these executions contain words, particularly body copy.
The Chivas Regal ad has 285 words of copy. And another striking ad for the RSPCA, “When the Government killed the dog licence they left us to kill the dogs”, actually has 460 words of copy.
And so, back to my headline: would a man so skilled with words be wanted in modern advertising? For modern advertising is largely wordless.
Word consumption elsewhere is on the increase (for example, The Henley Centre has shown that the time spent reading magazines and books is set to increase, despite competition from the internet).
But advertising is becoming increasingly wordless.
Look, for example, at the swankingly designed 2002 D&AD Annual. Twenty-two press advertisements (out of 2,206 submitted) are presented in the Press Advertising category. The majority of the ads selected have no body copy at all: Club 18-30, Reebok, Volkswagen, Land Rover, Nike, Harvey Nichols, Skoda … David Abbott wasn’t needed here!
Let’s look at the Writing for Advertising section and see if we can hunt some words down there. Interestingly, this used to be called the Copy section. In an attempt to upgrade the status of copy a few years ago, it was rebranded as Writing for Advertising. Forty years ago this might have made some sense, as writers were often found working in advertising agencies: Fay Weldon, Len Deighton and Salman Rushdie were all copywriters in the first agency I ever worked for.
But today, Writing for Advertising is a thin joke when we actually look at what has been selected by the eminent jury. Most of the ads selected for this “writing” category have no text. And of those that do, in an unconscious but real demotion of the relevance of words, the words are displayed in such a way that none of the text is actually legible. So, despite the undoubted excellence of the “writing” for the Land Rover ad, the HSBC ad and the Heinz ad, none of it is deemed important enough by D&AD to be actually read in its annual.
We can hunt the word with equal lack of success in the Campaign Press Awards of recent years.
The Campaign Gold Award for 2002 (Land Rover “hippo”); for 2001 (VW “lost dog”); 2000 (Stella Artois “chair”) and 1999 (VW “wedding”) – all are press ads with no text.
Do I hear a rumble building up in the creative departments of adland to rebut the thrust of this argument?
In those temples of post-modern irony, is a crushing “so what?” being released as you read these very words? Is not “copy”, in the sense of the text of an advertisement, merely – rather like the appendix in our bodies – just a leftover from another era, that serves no purpose most of the time and is pointless padding, filling up the visual space left at the bottom of most advertisements?
Is not the idea what matters? Is not a picture worth a thousand words?
Has not the other genius of modern advertising, my good friend John Hegarty, said: “Increasingly, the importance of craft is reducing and ideas and visions are coming to the fore”?
Where shall we start? Perhaps with Pablo Picasso, who first learned his craft skills before he discarded them. Today, as we shall see, those craft skills, certainly as far as the use of words in advertising are concerned, aren’t being learned in the first place.
So when Abbott wrote: “Think visually … sometimes the best copy is no copy”, he was writing as a man who had already mastered the art of copywriting.
And, of course, he is right. As he demonstrated with his brilliant ad for The Economist: “I never read The Economist – management trainee. Aged 42.”
My belief, however, is that the reason that words are in short supply in modern advertising (and I look to the lack of dialogue in most TV commercials as much as to the lack of body copy in most press ads) is less because the ads don’t need them and more because the advertising industry can’t write them.
Our training of copywriting is abysmal. One of the few places where it is done properly is at Watford, where Tony Cunningham runs a course on copywriting. He tells me that there is significantly less writing ability in their applicants than there used to be. Every now and then, a graduate turns up with writing skills and he (or she) is warmly welcomed on to the course. Interestingly, he tells me afterwards these are the ones who seem to progress fastest up the industry career ladder. (A small ray of hope in all this is that D&AD has just started a copywriting course. Thank goodness.)
Copywriting can be self-taught, of course, as it was in the case of Abbott.
But just listen to his energy and enthusiasm for words: “I used to memorise Bob Levenson’s copy and pick up cadences and rhythm.” Is that enthusiasm being looked for in today’s advertising?
Certainly, according to Cunningham, few agencies (with Abbott Mead Vickers BBDO, under Peter Souter, being one exception) look at the copy seriously when they are reviewing the portfolios of Watford students.
Does all this matter? Is advertising less good because the words have been left in the dictionary? Is this but the sad reflections of an aged copywriter who never came to grips with the era of TV, anyhow?
Let’s look at the evolution of advertising over the past half-century to see how advertising went wordless.
In the 50s, following in the footsteps of Claude Hopkins and his scientific advertising, advertising was very much a left-brain process. The left brain is the seat of logic, reason, calculating, language, reading and writing. It is linear, it does analysis.
The great revolution in advertising was because of two men: Ernest Dichter, who, in the Handbook of Consumer Motivation, used the understanding of Sigmund Freud to show the role of deep-seated emotions in product choice. And Bill Bernbach, who demonstrated conclusively that an ounce of candour was worth a pound of advertising pomposity.
Under their twin influences, the power of advertising shifted to the right brain. This is where images, co-ordination, creativity, and many emotions are seated.
And neuroscience’s latest findings are well summarised by Wendy Gordon in the introduction to her book The Mental World of Brands. “Brands are coded in memory on a cognitive and emotional basis. They are inextricably linked but it is emotional coding rather than reasoned argument that determines whether or not we take notice,” she writes.
Such a verdict should not be misunderstood for a rejection of words. For words can be as much a tool of emotion as reason. (As the words of poetry in WCRS’s Prudential television campaign demonstrates.) Nor is reasoned argument to be abandoned either. Depending when in the selling process it is used, it can be of real merit. The great VW ads of the past, from “lemon” to Abbott’s “If he can make it, so can Volkswagen” (with a picture of Marty Feldman), were reasoned arguments.
Just read the copy for the VW “lemon” ad and tell me that we’ve made progress in print advertising in the last 50 years.
Lemon.
This Volkswagen missed the boat.
The chrome strip on the glove compartment is blemished and must be replaced.
Chances are you wouldn’t have noticed it; Inspector Kurt Kroner did.
There are 3,389 men at our Wolfsburg factory with only one job: to inspect Volkswagens at each stage of production. (3,000 Volkswagens are produced daily; there are more inspectors than cars.)
Every shock absorber is tested (spot checking won’t do), every windshield is scanned. VWs have been rejected for surface scratches barely visible to the eye.
Final inspection is really something! VW inspectors run each car off the line onto the Funktionsprufstand (car test stand), tote up 189 check points, gun ahead to the automatic brake stand, and say “no” to one VW out of fifty.
This preoccupation with detail means the VW lasts longer and requires less maintenance, by and large, than other cars. (It also means a used VW depreciates less than any other car.)
We pluck the lemons; you get the plums.
By comparison, today’s Volkswagen ads, for all their visual wit, look thin, insubstantial and lack real depth of engagement. Surely clients deserve more than a wry smile from consumers.
Look back at D&AD’s excellent Rewind exhibition that reviewed 40 years of advertising and you’ll see the same vacuum at the heart of modern print advertising.
Go back and review those historic ads for Stella Artois, for the Army, for Uniroyal, for Selfridges, for the Health Education Council, for Parker Pens et al, and see if you don’t agree that they are better than their modern successors.
And modern television, for all its brilliant simplicity, its post-modern irony and its powerful use of imagery still lacks both the dialogue and the demonstration that the skills of a copywriter brought to the process in earlier eras.
Part of the traditional copywriters left-brain contribution (and the best copywriters have both active left and right brains) has been stolen by the planner.
So there has been some compensation inside the advertising agency by the development of the planning function to mirror the decline of the traditional copywriting function.
But even so, I believe balance towards the right brain has swung too far. The left brain has been left out of the picture for too long. Advertising has become unbalanced, we have become too much of a one-trick pony. No wonder clients see agencies as being too narrow. They are.
The evidence, both if you study historic D&AD annuals and, indeed, the new learnings of neuroscience, is that advertising would work better if it wasn’t just powered by half a brain but by the whole head.
David Abbott – where are you now that we really need you?
- Many thanks to Alison Drummond of Carat Insight for lots of helpful data that have illuminated my prejudices.
This article was first published on Campaign
Robin. - 23 October 2012 9:16 am
Robin, it’s a very interesting article. Not least because words are our primary means of communication, whether spoken or written. It was the David Abbott Chivas Regal ad that got me wanting to be a copywriter in the first place. Who could hear the Imperial War Museum radio spot reading a last letter from a WW1 soldier sent to his mother without getting tearful? Words reach the very deepest part of us, and they are how we communicate our deepest feelings. I have yet to meet an art director who proposed to their other half by drawing a picture of themselves on one knee holding out a ring. We all love the drawings our children do, but who can forget when they say their first word, on the first steps to becoming sentient beings?
I think it’s Neil French who said that wordless ads are merely a way to win ads if you’re writing in a foreign language. If advertising is the art of persuasion, I’m not sure that visual puns are always the best way to do it.
But then I’m a writer, so I would say that, wouldn’t I? Sorry to have ranted on for so long, Dave.
Off topic, does anyone remember a piece in Creative Review decades ago, using a Parker Pens ad (by Tony Brignall, I think), where the ad gets progressively messed up with entirely good intentions (show the whole range, starburst an offer, Xmas corner flash, etc). If anyone knows where to find, please shout out. Thanks.
Tom - 23 October 2012 9:37 am
Dave,
Is it, ’1, 2, 3 what are we working for? Don’t ask me I don’t give a damn…’
john p woods - 23 October 2012 11:34 am
@Tom, sorry ain’t seen the Parker ad – interesting to see it. But there is a ‘how to do a VW ad’ where the ad gets ruined with helpful input. This was pre-planners,ent
Robin. - 23 October 2012 2:00 pm
I’m sure the VW ad works on the same grounds. As I recall, you were shown a CDP Parker Pen ad in all its award-winning glory, beautiful layout, witty headline. The we saw it with the same pen in a range of colours. Next, an Xmas ribbon was added, and the headline changed to talking about presents. Then the ‘Available in gift pack’ sub head slid in under the headline. Then the 15% OFF starburst just in case the ad wasn’t ugly enough. And all done with the very best of intentions. The final result? Only a planner could love it…
Tom - 23 October 2012 2:08 pm
Of course, Nine Ways To Improve An Ad. Now in its fiftieth year of still being ignored by the people it’s supposed to help.
http://www.palio.com/nine-ways-to-improve-an-ad/
Adam Atkinson - 23 October 2012 2:42 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUXnJraKM3k
You’re welcome Adam.
steakandcheese - 23 October 2012 4:01 pm
@ Tom & Adam Atkinson, what’s really scary is these days, so many accounts come with a corporate grid that has to be religiously adhered to.
I once worked on a bank account and they actually paid their lawyers a lot of money to measure the ad to make sure the logo was exactly 1.3cm from the right. Really.
Then there are clients who insist that the ad has a subhead.
Would be easy to blame the clients but it won’t be fair. Some agencies specialize in compiling ‘rule books’ for clients. In the name of brand consistency, this is done.
What the creative teams lose in freedom, the agency makes in fees – these rule books don’t come cheap. Agencies have been known to charge tens of thousands.
Robin. - 23 October 2012 4:15 pm
How to improve the stop sign.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwqPYeTSYng&feature=related
Jim - 23 October 2012 4:33 pm
That’s brilliant Jim. Only sad thing is that at my place, the creatives talk the same way the clients do in that video.
steakandcheese - 23 October 2012 6:24 pm
British Airways had ‘LogoCop’ – Constructed from salvaged parts of Concorde – Had a long sharp nose to prod u with.
Grilla Login - 24 October 2012 9:12 am
I think most people do think in terms of real wages when they’re considering a job, even if they’re not making this trade off consciously.
The tricky thing is, when it comes to assessing the individuals we’ll we working with and what we can learn from them, we don’t tend to know their real value until we start there.
So “agency reputation” becomes our proxy for judging the quality of the “real wages” – creative stimulation, the agency culture and therefore the learning opportunity.
Which is why the agencies with a good reputation get the best talent at pretty modest salaries, whereas the agencies which haven’t worked hard enough at upping their “real wages” game, have to compensate through basic salary.
I wrote about something similar recently – and thought that maybe the Hollywood model offered a solution (unusually!)
http://room435.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/choosing-between-money-and-meaning/
Neasa Cunniffe - 28 October 2012 12:57 pm
Read your link, it makes perfect sense to me Neasa.
I think that’s how the best agencies work.
Dave Trott - 28 October 2012 1:31 pm
Reral wages are about changing people’s lives for the better.
Kev - 30 October 2012 8:52 pm
Although most agencies claim to work that way on paper – it’s only when you’re there you see whether they practice what they preach!
Neasa Cunniffe - 1 November 2012 10:00 pm
Absolutely true Neasa,
Everyone claims to agree to the same principles.
So why doesn’t their work?
Dave Trott - 2 November 2012 9:27 am